Nearly Right

When strength signals weakness

How Britain's most ambitious military deployment since 1971 reveals the enduring constraints that forced the original East of Suez retreat

The moment occurs at 0800 hours on a crystal-clear morning in the South China Sea. Twenty-four F-35B Lightning jets launch in sequence from HMS Prince of Wales, their vertical-lift engines carving precise angles through the humid air before transitioning to conventional flight. It represents the pinnacle of British military technology: fifth-generation stealth fighters operating from one of the world's most advanced aircraft carriers, projecting power 8,000 miles from home waters.

Yet those 24 aircraft constitute nearly Britain's entire deployable fleet of stealth fighters. The £4.6 billion carrier hosting them lacks adequate support vessels. The operation demonstrates impressive capability whilst revealing dangerous concentration that potential adversaries could exploit with devastating effectiveness—a strategic paradox echoing through fifty years of British defence policy.

When spectacle meets strategy

Operation Highmast, Exercise Talisman Sabre, and Mobility Guardian collectively showcase Britain's most ambitious Indo-Pacific deployment since Harold Wilson's government announced withdrawal from East of Suez in January 1968. HMS Prince of Wales leads a multinational strike group through contested waters whilst RAF transport aircraft maintain 15,000-mile supply chains and British forces integrate across Australia's largest military exercise involving 35,000 personnel from 19 nations.

Defence Secretary John Healey describes these operations as demonstrating "credible deterrence" whilst Defence Minister Lord Coaker proclaims them vital for upholding the "international rules-based order." The subtext: post-Brexit Britain has successfully repositioned itself as the "European partner with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific."

Beneath this confident exterior lie troubling parallels with the strategic overstretch that forced Britain's humiliating retreat from global commitments in the early 1970s. The National Audit Office warns that current operations risk "adding to the financial strain on a defence budget that is already unaffordable." Parliamentary analysis concludes that despite ambitious rhetoric, the UK maintains only "modest presence compared to allies" with "little to no fighting force in the region."

The ghost of strategic overcommitment

In the mid-1960s, Britain maintained substantial military bases in Singapore and Aden, operated advanced aircraft from forward positions, and participated in multinational exercises designed to contain Communist expansion. Politicians proclaimed these commitments essential for preserving Britain's global role. Military leaders highlighted technical achievements: vertical-takeoff Harrier jets, nuclear-powered submarines, and sophisticated radar systems demonstrating continued British innovation.

The strategic logic appeared compelling. Britain's bases East of Suez provided essential staging posts for global operations, reassured allies, and demonstrated resolve against potential adversaries. Economic arguments suggested that defending trade routes and maintaining influence in growing markets justified the costs.

Within five years, economic crisis, currency devaluation, and recognition that these bases consumed more security than they generated forced complete withdrawal. The compelling strategic rationale proved illusory when tested against fiscal reality and operational sustainability.

Contemporary operations follow remarkably similar patterns. The 2021 Integrated Review promised Britain would become "the European partner with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific." Politicians emphasise F-35B stealth capabilities, Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, and multinational interoperability whilst avoiding detailed analysis of long-term sustainability.

The mathematics of impossibility

Britain operates two aircraft carriers but possesses only one solid support vessel—RFA Fort Victoria—capable of resupplying them at sea. That ship entered service in 1994 and faces retirement in 2028. The Ministry of Defence has "made slow progress" acquiring replacements, meaning carriers will lack adequate logistics support throughout the 2020s.

The F-35B programme illustrates similar contradictions. Britain has ordered 138 Lightning jets but taken delivery of only 36. Current operations concentrate 24 aircraft—two-thirds of the available fleet—on a single carrier, leaving minimal reserves for European defence. Defence experts calculate that sustaining two operational squadrons requires approximately 72 aircraft, meaning current deployments operate at dangerous concentration levels.

Personnel constraints compound these gaps. The Royal Navy struggles to crew both carriers simultaneously. The RAF faces chronic shortages of F-35B pilots and engineers. Operating 24 stealth fighters from HMS Prince of Wales requires what naval sources describe as "artificially created alignment in maintenance" that cannot be sustained without compromising other capabilities.

These limitations remain obscured during high-profile exercises but would become critical vulnerabilities during sustained operations. A single mechanical failure or additional commitment could rapidly expose the gap between political promises and deliverable military effect.

The strategic contradiction exposed

Current Indo-Pacific operations occur precisely when European security faces its gravest threats since the Cold War. Russian forces occupy substantial Ukrainian territory and threaten NATO's eastern flank. China and Russia coordinate increasingly sophisticated challenges to the "rules-based international order."

Yet Britain deploys its most advanced military assets to demonstrate resolve in regions where it lacks capacity for sustained operations, whilst potentially weakening deterrence where core national interests face immediate threat. This inverts effective strategy: maximum effort expended for minimal strategic effect whilst leaving critical vulnerabilities exposed.

Britain's Indo-Pacific operations primarily serve American strategic objectives by providing visible allied participation in US-led exercises. However, the UK bears disproportionate costs relative to influence gained. American forces provide essential logistical support, intelligence capabilities, and operational coordination that British forces cannot sustain independently.

This creates dependency relationships that constrain rather than enhance British strategic autonomy. Future operations require American consent and support, meaning Britain's "global reach" represents regional participation in US-directed activities rather than genuinely independent capability.

The economic mirage

The economic justifications for Indo-Pacific engagement prove disappointingly modest. The region accounts for 56% of projected global growth through 2050, making engagement superficially attractive for post-Brexit Britain seeking alternative markets. However, concrete results remain limited.

Britain's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership adds less than 0.1% to GDP over the next decade. Trade statistics show minimal progress diversifying British commerce toward Asia despite years of political emphasis. The primary economic impact involves costs rather than benefits: billions spent on military capabilities that generate limited commercial returns.

Academic analysis suggests meaningful economic engagement requires sustained diplomatic and commercial presence rather than episodic military demonstrations. Yet current military commitments consume resources that might otherwise support effective economic penetration of Asian markets.

The alliance trap

Current operations create what strategists term "alliance subsidy" relationships where Britain bears costs for capabilities that primarily benefit other powers. RAF participation in Exercise Mobility Guardian and Talisman Sabre provides valuable training for British personnel whilst serving essential American needs for allied legitimacy.

The strategic benefits flow asymmetrically. American forces gain allied participation that shares political costs whilst maintaining operational control. Regional partners receive enhanced deterrence without corresponding capability development expenses. Britain provides expensive enablers—advanced aircraft, specialised personnel, sophisticated logistics—whilst accepting subordinate roles in US-directed operations.

These dynamics mirror colonial-era patterns where peripheral commitments served metropolitan interests at local expense. Contemporary operations risk creating identical dependency relationships where British capabilities support American strategy rather than distinctly British interests.

The inevitable adjustment

The trajectory points toward strategic adjustment within the current decade. Defence spending constraints, personnel limitations, and equipment replacement costs will force choices between competing commitments. Unlike the 1960s, when withdrawal followed crisis-driven recognition of overstretch, contemporary retrenchment may occur gradually through reduced operational tempo and scaled-back commitments.

Warning signs already appear. The 2023 Integrated Review Refresh mentions the Indo-Pacific tilt only briefly whilst emphasising European security priorities. Parliamentary committees question carrier operation sustainability given support vessel limitations. Military sources privately acknowledge that current deployment patterns cannot continue indefinitely without compromising core capabilities.

The strategic question remains whether Britain will manage this adjustment proactively, preserving essential capabilities whilst acknowledging resource constraints, or repeat the 1971 pattern of crisis-driven withdrawal that damaged British credibility and allied relationships.

The choice ahead

Operation Highmast and associated deployments represent impressive demonstrations of British military technology and operational sophistication. RAF personnel perform admirably in challenging conditions, Royal Navy crews operate complex systems effectively, yet these tactical successes cannot resolve the strategic contradictions that force choices between European security priorities and Indo-Pacific ambitions, between sustainable capabilities and impressive demonstrations, between genuine strategic autonomy and alliance dependency.

History suggests that powers which fail to align commitments with resources ultimately face imposed adjustment through crisis and retrenchment. Britain's current Indo-Pacific operations reveal both the enduring appeal of global influence and the persistent constraints that make such influence increasingly difficult to sustain.

The question facing policymakers is whether they will learn from the East of Suez experience and manage strategic adjustment before events impose it upon them, or whether the great gamble will once again end in inevitable withdrawal from commitments that proved too expensive to maintain.

In the South China Sea, HMS Prince of Wales continues its impressive demonstration of British capability. The strategic question is whether these demonstrations can continue indefinitely, or whether they represent the final flourish of ambitions that Britain cannot ultimately afford to maintain.

#aerospace #politics